By: dmc-admin//May 27, 2003//
Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings for the towns of Windsor and Burke was proper.
“Important to our analysis is the legal presumption that once an annexation ordinance has been passed, the annexed territory lies ‘within’ the municipality to which it is annexed. …
“Applying this presumption to the circumstances presented, demonstrates that DeForest’s attempt at annexation by enacting ordinance 2001-10 conflicts with the statutorily required procedure and therefore did not affect an annexation of the territory described. First, the legal description of the territory necessarily included 2100 acres that was presumptively within DeForest. Only territory outside of the municipality enacting the ordinance is eligible for annexation.
“Second, ordinance 2001-10 by its terms “detaches” from Windsor and Burke territory that was detached by the first ordinance on December 19. …
“Third, our holding is consistent with statutory provisions regarding the right to contest the validity of an annexation.”
We conclude that judgment on the pleadings was proper and that the repeal of an ordinance already in effect by enacting a correcting ordinance conflicts with the annexation procedures set out in Wis. Stat. § 66.0217.
Accordingly, because the power to annex land is purely statutory and DeForest failed to comply with the statutory directive when it enacted ordinance 2001-10, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment setting aside ordinance 2001-10.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist IV, Dane County, Ebert, J., Roggensack, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Allen D. Reuter, Madison; Kim Moermond, Madison
For Respondent: Lawrence E. Bechler, Madison; Timothy Fenner, Madison; Edward A. Hannan, Brookfield; Constance L. Anderson, Madison